Learning Consultant Study Summary

Emerging trends throughout the nation suggest that many Catholic school communities, both at the individual school level and at the diocesan level, recognize the need to develop more effective service delivery models for students with special needs (Barton, 2000; Long & Schuttloffel, 2006; Scanlan, in press-a; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2002). Catholic school educators are increasingly recognizing that to substantiate Catholic Social Teachings they are compelled to include and effectively serve these students (Long & Schuttloffel, 2006; Scanlan, in press-b) . As Long and Schuttloffel (2006) explain, this provides Catholic schools with a moral dilemma of weighing the "tension between the social justice value to include all students and the social justice value to provide adequately for these students' learning requirements" (p. 446). In short, despite the lack of a robust history of inclusion, some evidence suggests that Catholic schools are recognizing and attempting to redress their failure to comprehensively serve students with special needs.

I am conducting a study of two systems of Catholic schools pursuing this goal. The Archdioceses of Milwaukee and St. Louis both have promoted the implementation of the Learning Consultant Model for over a decade, a model which is atypical in Catholic school settings (Crowley & Wall, 2007; Durow, 2007; Gray & Gautier, 2006) . The Learning Consultant Model emphasizes raising the capacity of the general education teachers to meet the needs of the diversity of learners in their classrooms (Archdiocese of St. Louis Catholic Education Office, 2003; Burns, 2004; Dettmer, Thurston, & Dyck, 2005; Durow, 2007; Hobbs & Westling, 1998; Pugach & Johnson, 2002; Welch, 2000). Schools following the Learning Consultant Model each hire a learning consultant. The role of the learning consultant is primarily to provide direct services to the teachers and indirect services to the students and their families. As a faculty member with expertise in adapting curriculum and making accommodations for students who face cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and physical impediments to learning, the learning consultant helps teachers identify and respond to special needs.

The Learning Consultant Model is designed to help schools develop a systematic approach to both preventing and addressing problems associated with students' special needs. Traditional approaches to delivering services to students with special needs involve waiting for students to fail, then pulling these students out of the classroom to receive remediation in alternate settings. Such approaches have a poor track record of success, contribute toward a fragmented day for students, and diminish collaboration amongst educators (Frattura & Capper, 2007; Halvorsen & Neary, 2001; National Research Council, 2002; Villa & Thousand, 1996). By contrast, the Learning Consultant Model in theory attempts to decrease labeling and stigmatizing of students with special needs by integrating the service delivery into the general education classrooms. The Model increases the communication and collaboration of educators within a school to build their capacity to serve all students. It promotes both the prevention of student academic failure and the early intervention in addressing academic struggles, strategies which can reduce the disproportionate placement of students into special education settings (Hosp & Reschly, 2004).

This multicase study serves as an exploratory study of the benefits, shortcomings, and challenges that Catholic schools are experiencing as they implement the Learning Consultant Model. The study focuses on schools that are reputedly strong examples of this model in each Archdiocese. This study considers the relationship between this centralized support and the implementation of the Model, and provides groundwork for in-depth analyses of schools exhibiting successful implementation of the Model.

Extant research tends to focus on individual buildings within the public school sector. When Catholic schools are examined, the unit of analysis is typically the building, not district level (Lawrence-Brown & Muschaweck, 2004). This study, by contrast, considers schools operating within a larger system. Systems of Catholic schools are typically organized into groupings called dioceses and archdioceses. While some (arch)dioceses attempt to exert direct influence over schools, most tend to be decentralized, with the majority of control over operations residing at the school level. As a result, approaches to crafting service delivery systems for students with special needs frequently range widely from school to school within a common (arch)diocese. Given this broader context, the two archdioceses in this study provided interesting cases. Both the Archdioceses of St. Louis and Milwaukee are distinct from their other counterparts around the country in that they promote a collaborative service delivery model for students with special needs in elementary and secondary schools throughout their systems.

Technically, the Archdiocese of Milwaukee calls their model "Supportive Consultant" while St. Louis calls their model "Learning Consultant." For the purposes of this paper, I refer to both models as Learning Consultant.

Archdiocese of St. Louis Catholic Education Office (2003). Implementing the learning consultant model for addressing students' special learning needs: A guidebook for schools (2nd ed.). St. Louis: Author.

Barton, J. (2000). "To include or not to include?" That is not the question. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 3 (3), 329-341.

Burns, E. (2004). The special education consultant teacher: Enabling children with disabilities to be educated with nondisabled children to the maximun extent appropriate Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas.

Crowley, A. L. W., & Wall, S. (2007). Supporting children with disabilities in the Catholic schools. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 10 (4), 508-522.

Dettmer, P., Thurston, L. P., & Dyck, N. J. (2005). Consultation, collaboration, and teamwork for students with special needs (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Durow, W. P. (2007). Including and serving students with special needs in Catholic schools: A report of practices. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 10 (4), 473-489.

Frattura, E., & Capper, C. (2007). Leadership for social justice in practice: Integrated comprehensive services for all learners . Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

Gray, M., & Gautier, M. (2006). Primary trends, challenges, and outlook: A report on U.S. Catholic elementary schools 2000-2005 . Washington, D.C.: National Catholic Educational Association.

Halvorsen, A., & Neary, T. (2001). Building inclusive schools: Tools and strategies for success . Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Hobbs, T., & Westling, D. L. (1998). Promoting successful inclusion through collaborative problem-solving. Teaching Exceptional Children, 31 (1), 12-13.

Hosp, J. L., & Reschly, D. (2004). Disproportionate representation of minority students in special education: Academic, demographic, and economic predictors. Exceptional Children, 70 (2), 185.

Lawrence-Brown, D., & Muschaweck, K. (2004). Getting started with collaborative teamwork for inclusion. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 8 (2), 146-161.

Long, T. , & Schuttloffel, M. J. ( 2006 ). A rationale for special education in Catholic schools . Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice , 9 ( 4 ), 443-452 .

National Research Council (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education . Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Pugach, M., & Johnson, L. J. (2002). Collaborative practitioners, collaborative schools (Second ed.). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.

Scanlan, M. (in press-a). Emerging Trends of Inclusive Catholic Schools. In P. Bauch & T. Hunt (Eds.), Catholic schools in the public interest: Past, present, future . Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.

Scanlan, M. (in press-b). Grammar of Catholic schooling and radically "catholic" schools. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice .

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (2002). Welcome and justice for persons with disabilities: A framework of access and inclusion Retrieved July 9, 2005, from http://www.nccbuscc.org/doctrine/disabilities.htm

Villa, R. , & Thousand, J. ( 1996 ). Instilling collaboration for inclusive schooling as a way of doing business in public schools . Remedial and Special Education , 17 ( 3 ).

Welch, M. (2000). Collaboration as a tool for inclusion. In S. Wade (Ed.), Inclusive education: A casebook and readings for prospective and practicing teachers (pp. 71-95). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

ⁱTechnically, the Archdiocese of Milwaukee calls their model "Supportive Consultant" while St. Louis calls their model “Learning Consultant.” For the purposes of this paper, I refer to both models as Learning Consultant.